quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Important safety tip: replace Mike Pence, THEN impeach Trump.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I'm disturbed, nay offended that Trump has curtailed the meeting with Australia's Prime Minister to a brief half hour. This is a slap in the face to one of the USA's closest allies and seems odd considering Trump really laid out the red carpet for the Chinese leader. This offensive treatment of our Prime Minister will not be quickly forgotten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I'm disturbed, nay offended that Trump has curtailed the meeting with Australia's Prime Minister to a brief half hour. This is a slap in the face to one of the USA's closest allies and seems odd considering Trump really laid out the red carpet for the Chinese leader. This offensive treatment of our Prime Minister will not be quickly forgotten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Important safety tip: replace Mike Pence, THEN impeach Trump. Pence is even more dangerous - he's a sexist, homophobic troglodyte who does have government experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marama:
I am glad to say I have never had to have a discussion with Turnbull about anything. However, with all his faults I do think he is less mad than Trump.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Nick--

If you follow the links in the OP and my following post, you'll find that the emphasis is on competency, fitness, etc. 25th amendment stuff.

Not just popularity.

FYI: More than 50,000 psychiatrists have signed a petition saying there's something seriously wrong with T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Nice fantasy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Important safety tip: replace Mike Pence, THEN impeach Trump. Pence is even more dangerous - he's a sexist, homophobic troglodyte who does have government experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Our problem at this moment is that although the judiciary is a bulwark, Congress is rubber-kneed and spaghetti-spined, the Viagra-popping slave of their vile master. If we can throw the ring into the volcano, he will become the usual dark spirit gnawing itself but unable to grow or interfere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

With the threat of a Full Nixon before him, Li'l Donny might be induced by Ivanka to resign 'for health reasons'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
[QUOTE]Our real problem is that the Democrats have no one who can step forward as a front runner. If the Kennedy Brothers are indeed in heaven, perhaps they can whisper in God's ear to do something, anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Just a question from left-field...

Say you got rid of Trump. Say he was replaced by a more typical politician who didn't take to Twitter each evening to say how GREAT or BAD something is. Say even the Democrats win the next election.

What changes for the disaffected? What changes for those who, for whatever reason, voted for Trump? Do you see any recognition from either side, and here is where I show my colo(u)rs, that the promises of endless wealth and choice are an illusion for some and do not necessarily mean a more equal society? Do you see a recognition that promises made by politicians are worth nought? (And to criticise the other side, how many here truly believe Hillary would not support the Transpacific Free Trade Agreement after her changing her view in the campaign? Are we just supposed to expect lies?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:

On the Senate side, you will need 60 Senators to vote to convict. I am betting by the time 2018 comes around there will be enough Republican Senators who will want to cut their losses and get rid of Trump because they will be facing their own constituents if not in 2018, 2020.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, I think we're OK. Remember the election is three years away. In early 2005 how well known was Barack Obama?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, I think we're OK. Remember the election is three years away. In early 2005 how well known was Barack Obama?

---

In 2005, Barack Obama was an impressive new Senator. I know a couple of people who heard him speak at the time, and both said something to the effect of "watch this guy - he's going places." He may not have had much national recognition, but his name was circulating as a talent to watch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point is 2020 is a long way off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But 2018 isn't. Who is there who could replace the despicable Mitch McConnell and his deer-in-the-headlights stare, or the loathsome Lindsay Graham, who looks like he washes his face in Botox, or all the other Repulsivicans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
... That Lincoln, who suffered depression before becoming POTUS, managed to keep it together through the Civil War, is why he is the one president of whom I revere. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Armchair diagnosing Trump is a bad idea.

---

quote:

---

It only serves to increase stigma against people with mental illness, particularly those with personality disorders who experience particularly high levels of stigma.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, I think we're OK. Remember the election is three years away. In early 2005 how well known was Barack Obama?

---

In 2005, Barack Obama was an impressive new Senator. I know a couple of people who heard him speak at the time, and both said something to the effect of "watch this guy - he's going places." He may not have had much national recognition, but his name was circulating as a talent to watch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Armchair diagnosing Trump is a bad idea.

---

The first inkling that something is not right rarely occurs in a psychologist's office.

quote:

---

It only serves to increase stigma against people with mental illness, particularly those with personality disorders who experience particularly high levels of stigma.

---

In this case I disagree, at least partially. Not because I detest the man, but because his proposed conditions are not the only thing by which he is being judged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
So increased stigma against people with mental illness just doesn't matter?

---

quote:

---

'Something is not right' is not a diagnosis. It would be inappropriate to diagnose someone as having diabetes just because they're very thirsty, or as having a brain tumour just because they have a really bad headache. Nobody would act like this about physical illness,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
'Something is not right' is not a diagnosis. It would be inappropriate to diagnose someone as having diabetes just because they're very thirsty, or as having a brain tumour just because they have a really bad headache. Nobody would act like this about physical illness, so why perpetuate the myth that mental illness is less of an illness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
... That Lincoln, who suffered depression before becoming POTUS, managed to keep it together through the Civil War, is why he is the one president of whom I revere. ...

---

Since half the country was fighting a war against him at the time, is that really the best way of putting that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leaving aside his moral issues (the narcissism and the like), I'm concerned about his word salad and his rotten judgement. Those look like deepening dementia to me, and I have some professional training / education on the subject.

I would be very glad to get a proper doctor to see him, but you know that's going to be refused. Remember what he did with that during the campaign?

A pity there's no simple test for Alzheimer's.

ETA: And yes, this is armchair diagnosis, it can hardly be avoided when you hear someone being as routinely incoherent as he is. And really, virtually every "real" diagnosis is preceded by armchair diagnosis, even if it's no more definitive than "something ain't right." That's how relatives get taken to the doctor in the first place--somebody gets worried enough.

---

The tentative diagnosis that's being suggested by a number of psychiatrists is not Alzheimer's but rather narcissistic personality disorder, which is not a simple disagreeable personality trait but an identifiable mental illness with specific diagnostic criteria outlined in DSM. Unfortunately, unlike many other forms of mental illness it is notably difficult to treat and the nature of the disorder makes it unlikely the patient will seek treatment voluntarily.

Of course the two are not mutually exclusive-- it's quite possible for POTUS to suffer from both Alzheimer's and narcissistic personality disorder. But I see a lot more evidence for the latter. Some of the word salad we're seeing can be a function of that as he finds himself so clearly out of his depth but is incapable of acknowledging that.

All of which again simply suggests the necessity of an extensive mental and physical health evaluation. How one obtains that involuntarily is of course another matter.

[ 06. May 2017, 19:53: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Certainly. I left out the (extremely obvious!) narcissism because it borders on being (okay, IS) an ethical problem, though of course it's classed as a personality disorder too. I figured we'd beaten that horse to death already in this thread, and I'd only stir up more "but being nasty isn't a disorder!" posts if I said more on it.

[ETA: and of course Alzheimer's comes to the narcissists and the non-narcissists, and it's entirely possible--even likely--that he has both.]

Alzheimer's, on the other hand, is fairly clearly a different thing than simply being nasty, though it can lead to nastiness (or the opposite, if you're lucky). It's also pretty easy to diagnose from a distance once it gets advanced enough. Not in the sense of being able to tell it from the other dementias (Lewy body etc.) but in the sense that you can tell there's definitely a medical problem as opposed to pure nastiness.

I'm not completely convinced that simply getting over one's head will produce this degree of word salad, though. He is mixing up nouns and... well, everything; his sentences seem to have three syntactical structures (all incomplete) as often as they have one; his antecedents are completely screwed, and not in the ways that normal people screw up.

I wonder if this explains his fondness for Twitter. The character limit prevents some of his incoherence because he simply can't go on long enough to lose himself as thoroughly as he does when speaking.

Now there's a dissertation topic for some poor grad student.

[ 06. May 2017, 21:12: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Certainly. I left out the (extremely obvious!) narcissism because it borders on being (okay, IS) an ethical problem, though of course it's classed as a personality disorder too. I figured we'd beaten that horse to death already in this thread, and I'd only stir up more "but being nasty isn't a disorder!" posts if I said more on it.

[ETA: and of course Alzheimer's comes to the narcissists and the non-narcissists, and it's entirely possible--even likely--that he has both.]

Alzheimer's, on the other hand, is fairly clearly a different thing than simply being nasty, though it can lead to nastiness (or the opposite, if you're lucky). It's also pretty easy to diagnose from a distance once it gets advanced enough. Not in the sense of being able to tell it from the other dementias (Lewy body etc.) but in the sense that you can tell there's definitely a medical problem as opposed to pure nastiness.

I'm not completely convinced that simply getting over one's head will produce this degree of word salad, though. He is mixing up nouns and... well, everything; his sentences seem to have three syntactical structures (all incomplete) as often as they have one; his antecedents are completely screwed, and not in the ways that normal people screw up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A professional assessment is in order-- albeit quite difficult to imagine how to compel it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A professional assessment is in order-- albeit quite difficult to imagine how to compel it.

---

Perhaps the press, perhaps under the clandestine guidance of the medical profession, could prod him incessantly with questions, his answers to which would likely expose the disease.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I rarely say this, but you're wrong on this one, Lamb. Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a recognized mental illness is not the same thing as "being nasty" or even "being full of oneself". It is a medical issue, not an ethical one (which is not to say that Trump doesn't have waaay more than his share of ethical issues, but that's not what this is about). NPD has recognized diagnostic criteria identified in the DSM-- markers-- of which Trump hits most. Especially when compared to Alzheimer's-- which is similarly difficult to diagnose. It is NPD that professionals in the field are pointing to, not Alzheimer's. And the more extreme range of NPD could similarly skew one's perception of reality in ways quite similar to what we're seeing with Trump. Which is why a professional assessment is in order-- albeit quite difficult to imagine how to compel it.

Again, this is different from just saying he should be impeached because he's not a nice person or we don't like him.

---

Ugh.
I was NOT saying that NPD = being a nasty person. I was saying that on this thread there seems to be a confusion between the two states for certain posters (not including me), and that certain other posters are getting very ... energetic... about calling them on it. Which is why I avoided further discussion that particular diagnosis. I'd just be generating more heat and less light.

I do, by the way, entirely agree that he has NPD. If I ever saw a textbook case...

My point was simply that you can have TWO mental disorders at the same time, and that IMHO Trump has at least one (the NPD) and is likely to have two--the second being early Alzheimer's or one of the other dementias. I chose to discuss that second one here because it is less likely to provoke posts like "You only say that because you don't like his personality." Most people can tell the difference between AD/similar dementias and being a nasty person. That degree of clarity doesn't seem to exist in the public mind when we discuss NPD.

Full disclosure: I have the equivalent of a master's degree in professional counseling, though without the actual paperwork. This is the result of doing the degree in tandem with Mr. Lamb, who has English language issues sufficiently challenging that the only realistic way to make sure he both takes in everything he should (receptive learning) and expresses out everything he means (communicated primarily in writing--he does all right orally) is to study the subject right along with him--all the homework, sessions, etc. Which I did. I could probably get myself professionally licensed tomorrow if it weren't for the paper trail problem--and that could doubtless be adjusted if I forked over the extra $40,000 in tuition money they'd be wanting at the university for the ride-along student they didn't quite realize they had.

Anyway, sorry to be such an ass. But yes, I do know what the personality disorder are, I have more knowledge than I really want about the DSM-IV and V criteria, and yeah, I do still think Trump has dementia in addition to NPD. Though I admit I haven't gone back to listen to recordings of his earlier life to see if the items I mentioned have increased significantly.

[ 07. May 2017, 02:15: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Thanks for the clarification-- that really wasn't clear in your original post, at least to me. But it is now. I think.

[ 07. May 2017, 02:39: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'm sorry. I'm so fried, I ought to be in bed. Must tidy myself away...
 

---

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Had to Google "pull a Wilson." I don't see your reference.

If he fell down at the podium foaming at the mouth, I think something would be done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Had to Google "pull a Wilson." I don't see your reference.

---

I would guess the reference was to Woodrow Wilson who was incapacitated towards the end of his presidency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
If he does have dementia, it can go downhill very quickly. My Mum went overnight from seeming almost her usual self ('tho there were many signs, looking back) to taking all her clothes off in public.

---

If Trump did that the Republicans would all admire his new clothes.
 

---

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
1. We don't need a formal fucking diagnosis to see that the howling shitgibbon's just plain dumb. Or it'd-be-hilarious-but-for-the-missles-bit out of his depth. Or a puppet of whichever family member/crony/courtier has their hand shoved up his puppethole this week. There could be no label in Heaven, Earth, or the DSM-V for Trump, and he'd still be just as replaceable by a pig in a wig, an automated Twitter chatbot, and a randomized daily chance of global nuclear Armageddon.

Does he have dementia? Well, I'm not a doctor, I don't want to make diagnoses from afar, I don't really know enough to judge that medical stuff . . . but completely out of touch with reality, yeah, that's obvious. Narcissistic personality disorder? Same disclaimers, but who needs him—"fucking self-absorbed, self-serving egomaniac who will never understand that you can't fuck over the entire country just to put your name on it and make yourself rich" doesn't need a diagnosis. We don't need the clinicians to declare him unfit when we can all see the moral faults as plain as day.

2. But, other than the "nuclear weapons" bit, actually, going full-on Kind Hearts and Coronets is probably not needed. Having a blustering howler monkey in a bad tie who can't actually get anything done and only makes his party look bad by association isn't nearly as bad as putting Pence or Ryan (once Pence gets thrown out when we all discover how deep the corruption goes) in charge. Not only could they Get Things Done, but they have actual principles. They know what they want, and how to go about getting it...and Great Googly Moogly, is it ever terrifying. Short of throwing out everyone between Trump and Mattis—Pence, Ryan, Tillerson, and Mnuchin—it's going to be hard to get a competent, public-spirited adult who knows about governing into power.

Controlling Trump? Some people are actually figuring out how to do it. Just figure out how to manipulate the morning cable news, or whomever he last talked to. Imply Bannon's the power behind the throne, and poof, a different puppetmaster steps in. It's become a Jacobean palace drama, with courtiers vying for control of the mad king.

3. Who will the Democrats run? Well, the Presidency is now an entry-level job, so someone we've barely heard of might actually work. How long did it take the Tea Party to take over the Republican party? Two years? And where was Ted Cruz six years ago? A state solicitor general who'd argued a couple SCOTUS cases, sure, known to a few in conservative legal circles, but not someone capable of singlehandedly paralyzing the United States government!

Rises to power from seemingly nowhere are a Thing. The people entering the party today, who are running for off-year elections—the school board, city council, county sheriff, House of Delegates candidates who would have never thought of running for dogcatcher a year ago—will be running the ground game for statewide and national candidates in 2018 and 2020. They'll be in the smoke-filled room, such as it is these days. Yes, they'll eventually be the national candidates themselves—but in the near term, they can enable a seeming back-bencher who's going "somewhere, someday" to run today.

That may be the immediate impact of the new "if it's Sunday, there must be a protest" reality. There are new people who can shape the party machine, new people who are part of it—and maybe, just maybe, make it work in the upcoming elections.

[ 07. May 2017, 15:42: Message edited by: Ariston ]
 

---

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Well, Trump just fired Comey. Who can be appointed without taint? And now that Comey is now cut loose, will he talk more (since staying mum when he really should have wasn't his strong suit)? Further, Sessions having recused himself, who then appoints Comey's successor?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Well, Trump just fired Comey. Who can be appointed without taint? And now that Comey is now cut loose, will he talk more (since staying mum when he really should have wasn't his strong suit)? Further, Sessions having recused himself, who then appoints Comey's successor?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

A pity there's no simple test for Alzheimer's.

---

Except autopsy
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 


Welcome back, Lots of Yay!
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I agree that the thought of another 44 months of Trump presidency is enough to make one lose the will to live but if the democrats are sensible they'll leave him to get on with things for the moments.

IMO the Democrats would do far better to spend their time and energy on properly analysing why The Donald got the votes he did - in other words no taking refuge in simplistic "it was a bunch of redneck undesirables" cliches, and on bringing on a group of much younger politicians who can mount a credible and successful challenge to DT in 2020.

All the time being expended on anti-Trump demonstrations and campaigns is wasted effort: stop moaning and get working to make him a one-term POTUS. Of course, if DT manages to get himself impeached that would be a bonus, but if DT's loyal followers see even a hint of Democrat fingerprints on anything like that it will just make them more likely to find a DT look-alike to replace him, God forbid.
 

---

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Of course, if DT manages to get himself impeached that would be a bonus, but if DT's loyal followers see even a hint of Democrat fingerprints on anything like that it will just make them more likely to find a DT look-alike to replace him, God forbid.

---

His replacement would be his vice-president, Mike Pence, who is as scary if not scarier than DT.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Yes, I know it would be Pence in the first instance: I was thinking about the 2020 election.

A cynic might look at Pence and decide he was actually the brightest of all the potential Republican presidential wannabees because he worked out that the way to power was more likely to be by avoiding the Donald on the stump but accepting the post of VP calculating there was a good chance that a Trump presidency would implode.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
L'organist--

Respectfully, no. Making sure he's a one-term president isn't enough. He's already done much damage, and he and his family and minions will continue to do much more. Not to mention what the Republicans in Congress will do. (It was one of them, I think, who recently said--to a roomful of angry people--that "no one dies for lack of health care"!)


I think the Democrats *have* analyzed the election, and are considering what to do better. But they're also looking at all the many other problems with Trump being president: his competency; business interests; probably his provoking Kim Jung Un, which might well bring a nuclear boom; that damned wall; and all sorts of other lovely things.

T needs to go. **Legally and non-violently**, but he needs to go--and much sooner than the next election.

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Welcome back, Lots of Yay!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I agree he needs to go. But I see no path to achieve this, short of flipping the House in November 2018. The current GOP is spineless; they will collude with Lyin' Don until the cows come home. They hold the majority; no special prosecutor can be named without them, and the president has to approve it -- fat chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lots of Yay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

A pity there's no simple test for Alzheimer's.

---

Except autopsy

---

Hi, Lots of Yay!

As for your suggestion... you make the first move.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Golden Key

I agree that in a perfect world Trump has to go, but there still seems to be far too much energy being wasted on demonising Trump supporters, which may enable some to vent their spleen but doesn't move forward a millimetre towards the goal of a White House free of The Donald.

As for the latest (Comey, possibility of taping, etc, etc, etc), I'm old enough to remember Nixon and Watergate and what is frightening is just how long it all took: the first wire-tap was done in late May 1972 but it was August 1974 before Nixon went. If you believe, as I do, that 26 months is too long to wait for DT to go (it would be end of July 2019 FFS!) then I'm sure you agree that all and every effort must be put into getting safe and credible replacements ready - of either party or none - PDQ.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, Sessions is clearly Lyin' Don's tool. Remember, he has already recused himself after howls of outrage. He'll never do it.

I believe it will get worse, and finally the GOP will be driven to cover their asses. But that worse will be very bad indeed. I foresee that people will have to die, Americans (i.e. real people from their point of view) not foreigners. Blood is what it will take.

---

There's hope - maybe it is dementia. If so it could progress very quickly. Those close to him wouldn't be able to cover it up indefinitely.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
There's hope - maybe it is dementia. If so it could progress very quickly. Those close to him wouldn't be able to cover it up indefinitely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
... I agree that in a perfect world Trump has to go, but there still seems to be far too much energy being wasted on demonising Trump supporters, which may enable some to vent their spleen but doesn't move forward a millimetre towards the goal of a White House free of The Donald. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re dementia--

Another possible factor:

"Trump Takes Propecia, A Hair-Loss Drug Associated With Mental Confusion, Impotence: Everything you need to know about the new disclosure" (HuffPost). (That's from February 2017. It's based on NY Times reporting; but I went with HP to avoid the NYT paywall.) BTW, Trump's doctor revealed this, though he didn't say it affected Trump's mind.

Recently, someone mentioned, in the news, that if you look at old news videos, Trump seemed much more normal. What happened?

---

quote:

---

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my, like, credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger, fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0